Re: he-hag no more

[Joan C Biella]

Yes--I suppose it should be listed under both "he-" and "hag"!

Thank you--
Joan

>>> Jasmin Nof <j...@umd.edu> 1/20/2010 2:34 PM >>>
Joan, would you like for me to note this on the changed romanization 
chart in the wiki?  Jasmin


Joan C Biella wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Recently in leafing idly through the new edition of Even-Shoshan I
> noticed that one of my favorite off-the-wall Hebrew romanization
> oddities exists no more.  In the article on “hag [subscript dot
under
> the h]” we are no longer instructed to romanize the singular with
the
> definite article as “he-hag” (with segol and kamats).  I counted
six
> uses of “ha-hag” (two patahs) in the article.
>
> The LC database had 49 hits for “he-hag,” 29 for “ha-hag.” 
> I’ll get started fixing the 49.
>
> In the grip of fear for other old favorites, I checked the articles
> which cover “he-hasid,” “he-hakham,” “he-haver,” and
> “he-‘arim.”  I didn’t see any evidence that these need to
> be changed.  he-Hatam Sofer is also safe for the moment. 
>
> Joan
>
>